vote of the Legislature the number of superior judges can be increased, there is no provision for increasing the appellate courts. The result is that fifty-eight counties of this state, having one hundred and fifteen superior judges, all appeal to the three appellate and one Supreme Court. It would really have been a wiser provision to have the Constitution provide that the Legislature could increase the appellate court than it would be to have it increase the number of superior judges. A matter of state concern, such as a change in reference to the appellate courts, is much more likely to receive careful consideration in the Legislature. The question of increasing the number of superior judges often becomes one of comity between members of the Legislature, when the assemblyman from one county decides that the county needs some new officer, other assemblymen often vote with him because of the desire not to thwart him, so that in turn they will likewise not be thwarted in their respective desires. The result is that in many cases the number of judges of the superior courts has been increased in advance of the actual demand. That is not always the case, but it has been so in many instances.

The Amendment Recommended

There being no method of increasing the number of appellate judges, or providing for any other department of the appellate courts, without an amendment to the Constitution, the committee was of the opinion that an amendment was the best method of reaching the problem. This amendment has been suggested in part by some of the judges of the Supreme Court, and has been gone over at great length by the committee. The amendment provides that the Governor is authorized, on the request of the Supreme Court, to create an additional district court in any one of the appellate districts. You will note in the first place that the courts are not created ipso facto, but only on the recommendation of the Supreme Court. It further provides that the court will only continue for a period of four years, unless it is renewed, and it can only be renewed once. There was a general feeling that it was undesirable to place before the voters an amendment creating these courts permanently.

It is provided in this amendment that all the provisions of the constitution relating to the District Courts of Appeal shall apply to the new courts when they are created, and it is also provided that these departments when created shall only hear and determine such cases as are actually assigned to them by the Supreme Court. It was the idea that by this means the judges appointed would be entirely free from the delays incident to considering many of the matters that come be

fore the other courts, such as writs of habeas corpus and extraordinary writs, and other matters of that kind.

Conditions Becoming Worse

It is morally certain that if something is not done the conditions here will become worse. The public at large are greatly interested in having matters promptly and expeditiously settled. The expense incident to this amendment is extremely small in a state like this. The committee feels that it is, under all the conditions, the best method that can be pursued. One of these courts would certainly be able to dispose of two hundred cases a year, and if that is the case, the amendment will clear up the situation and probably keep it cleared. But as long as the community grows, we are going to have these problems.

The State Bar Association has taken this matter up and decided in favor of this amendment, and will endeavor to have it placed on the ballot in November. The idea is that as we have to go before the ultimate tribunal, namely, the people, it was desirable to have it appear on the ballot by petition rather than take it up in the Legislature. The latter method would require a delay of two years. Accordingly, an effort is being made by various associates in the state to arrange to get the necessary signatures to place the matter on the ballot in November.

Having stated generally the report of the committee, I want to give way to some of the others, who probably know more about the question than I do, and who will explain some of the reasons why they believe this remedy is the best under all the circumstances and why they feel it should be adopted. (Applause.)

Remarks by President Hodghead

THE PRESIDENT: The conclusion which the committee appears to have drawn from this review of the facts is that there must either be fewer appeals or more appellate judges. This is not a question for the relief of the Supreme Court. It is a question for the relief of those citizens of the state who have a right to have their causes heard and determined in the Supreme Court.

In proceeding to an intelligent discussion of this question it is, of course, eminently proper that we should go to the court itself for an account of the conditions which there prevail.

We have with us this evening the Chief Justice. Judge Angellotti does not desire to be announced for a set address on this occasion, but was good enough to come here and give us a few moments in explaining the conditions as they exist with regard to the calendar, and also state his views with reference to this proposed amendment. We would be very glad to hear from Justice Angellotti. (Applause.)

Statement by Hon. F. M. Angellotti

CHIEF JUSTICE ANGELLOTTI: I observe that the subject assigned to me on the programme this evening is the need of relief, and I feel, after hearing Mr. Cushing's remarks, that there is very little left for me to say as to the existing conditions. He has certainly portrayed them very clearly indeed.

There can be no question as to the necessity for doing something immediately to relieve the present congestion. The figures are a little bit worse than he puts them. He gave them to you as of the date of March 27th, when the clerk made up his list. At the present time the cases unsubmitted in the Los Angeles district, which is the most fruitful source of litigation, number 650, and in our own San Francisco district 375, and in the Sacramento district about 150. We are over two years behind, taking the date of the filing of the transcript on appeal as the criterion-over two years behind in the Los Angeles district, just about two years in the San Francisco district, and in the Sacramento district about one year and a half behind. And, as Mr. Cushing says, it means that a person whose case is carried to the Supreme Court, no matter how necessary it may be for him to obtain speedy relief, unless his case happens to be one of the preferred cases under the law, he must make up his mind to wait that period of time before his case can even be placed on the calendar of the court for hearing; and we all of us realize that in very many cases this means an absolute denial of justice.

Now, I feel, with my experience on the appellate bench, that this condition is not due to any lack of effort on the part of the judges themselves. It may be that certain improvements could be made in the method of carrying on the business, and I am sure that the members of the various appellate courts are always glad to receive suggestions from the bar associations and from lawyers as to any possible improvement in the mere detail method of doing the work. But I am sure, too, that the judges are all working as hard as they can for the purpose of getting rid of this accumulated business.

Reasons for the Change

The conditions that have brought about this arrearage have been, I think, very well covered by Mr. Cushing-the growth of population and the vast increase in legislation, and the problems that come to us from the new and very novel legislation of the last few years. In addition, you know that the Constitution requires that in the decision of cases the reasons of the court must be given in writing. That, per

haps, is a necessary requirement; at least, it was thought so by the people who put it in the Constitution of 1879; but it means that we can actually dispose of much less business than we would be able to dispose of if we could decide cases without written opinions where we deemed a written opinion unnecessary.

Whatever the reasons, the conditions are as they have been explained to you, and I think that every good citizen will at once acknowledge that something should be done, and done at once, to get rid of this two years arrearage of unsubmitted cases. The question is, how soon can we do it? and what is the best way to do it?

As Mr. Cushing has explained to you, the amendment that has been suggested has been very carefully thought over by the committee of the State Bar Association, by some of the representatives of your Club, and by some of the members of our court. It is the only remedy that is now before the people. Nothing has been suggested in any tangible form by any of the critics of this amendment. And the situation is 'simply this, that if this amendment is not adopted you will have to bear with existing conditions, which will probably grow worse, for some three years to come. So that it is apparent that unless there is some very serious objection to this, if it be thought that it will clearly accomplish what is desired, it ought to be adopted.

Avoiding Delay

It is proposed, of course, as Mr. Cushing said, to put this on the ballot at this election by petition, to invoke the initiative; and the reason for that is simply that unless this is done at the coming election nothing can be done except by constitutional amendment proposed by the next Legislature, which can be adopted by the people only at the general election of 1918. This would mean, as I suggested, a delay of some three years.

Now, this remedy is purely temporary in character. It may be that it is not the best thing that could be obtained for a permanent system, and it is proposed as a temporary measure, the most economical one that could be devised to carry on the work of disposing of this business during the next four years. Within this time the lawyers of the state, and others interested, can devise and propose and have adopted, if the people are willing, a permanent method more in accord with their desires.

So far as I am concerned, however, I am a firm believer in our present appellate system-the Supreme Court with the intermediate District Courts of Appeal. It is the most elastic method that could be

devised. As you know, the Supreme Court has the absolute power to transfer any case from itself to any District Court of Appeal, from any District Court of Appeal to another District Court of Appeal, and from any District Court of Appeal to itself; with the result that it can equalize the appellate business of the state, giving to each of the courts the amount of work that that court is able to transact. At the same time it has supervisory authority insofar as the decisions of those courts are concerned, for it is necessary that there should be some ultimate authority to reconcile decisions, to prevent conflicts in the law, and to correct erroneous statements of law. I said "correct erroneous statements of law." I should say, to make the decisions of the District Court of Appeal coincide with the views of the Supreme Court as to what is the law. A few days ago a gentleman who was arguing a case before the Supreme Court stated to us that our court was the tribunal of ultimate conjecture, so far as the State of California was concerned. (Laughter.)

Explanation of the Amendment

Now, the amendment probably has been read by every member of the bar. It authorizes the Governor to create on the request of the Supreme Court one additional District Court in each Appellate District, each court to continue in existence for a term of four years from the date of its creation, and on like request by the Supreme Court, to be recreated for a further term of four years. The Governor is to appoint the members of that court, and to fill all vacancies therein except in cases of recall. All provisions of the constitution and laws relating to the District Court of Appeals and the justices thereof not inconsistent therewith, including those providing for the recall, shall apply to such newly created courts. Such courts shall have jurisdiction only of such cases as may be transferred to them by the Supreme Court, and any court so created is to hold its sessions at the place where the regular Appellate Court of the district holds its sessions, and its officers are to be the officers and attaches of the present District Courts of Appeal.

We who have had considerable experience in appellate business. in the state feel that this affords the only practical and immediate remedy for the condition that now exists.

There have been a great many objections made by members of the bar to this amendment since it was first published. As I said a moment ago, nobody has as yet, however, produced anything to take its place. We have simply the criticisms and the objections, and I must confess that I have not as yet heard an objection to this as a temporary measure that is really worthy of very serious consideration.